30 November 2015 1:22 PM

Often in the past few days, BBC listeners and viewers, and readers of the unpopular newspapers, might have had the impression that Britain is discussing the pros and cons of an intervention in the Labour Party, rather than of an intervention in Syria.

As I read the papers and listened to BBC Radio 4 on Friday morning last week, I was baffled to find that the main item was not the plan for war, but the divisions on this subject within the Labour Party.

As it happens, the Tory party is also divided on the issue, as is the Tory press My newspaper, the Mail on Sunday, cautiously favoured bombing yesterday (Advent Sunday, 29th November). By contrast, our stablemate, the Daily Mail, said on Saturday 28th November that Mr Cameron had not made the case for war. Sir Max Hastings says he finds it hard to accept that bombing Syria will ‘bring us any closer to a happy ending’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3335744/MAX-HASTINGS-die-cast-going-join-bombing-Islamic-State-Syria.html. Matthew Parris, generally sympathetic to Mr Cameron, wrote in the Times on Saturday (behind a paywall) that Jeremy Corbyn was right on this issue. Careful readers of the London press will no doubt have found many other reservations about bombing among normally pro-Government publications.

And Mr Cameron is extremely nervous of risking a Parliamentary defeat, as this might severely weaken and even destroy his position. I asked a 'Whitehall source' on Monday morning if there was any word about how the government planned to whip its MPs. There was (then) none.

I might add that, until the Daily Mirror obliged on Saturday morning, showing that there was no absolute majority for bombing, but that pro-bombers were close to 50% of voters and considerably more numerous than anti-bombers (normal at the start of any conflict, alas) I’d seen no attempt to discover the state of public opinion on the matter.

I woke on Friday expecting a variety of opinion and some through coverage of the Commons debate, mentioning the strong doubts about intervention voiced by MPs from all sides.

But that morning, all four major unpopular daily papers chose virtually identical headlines, and identical angles on identical stories.

As I noted in my Sunday MoS column:

‘All the four main unpopular newspapers had virtually the same page one headline on Friday morning: The Times: ‘Labour at war over vote to bomb Isis’, The Telegraph: ‘Labour at war over Syria air strikes’; The Guardian: ‘Labour in Syria Turmoil as PM makes the case for war’; ‘The Independent’ : ‘Labour at war over air strikes in Syria’. The BBC’s headlines were very similar.

‘None of these stories contained any clear facts, just anonymous briefings. If it had been a plane crash, or a verdict in a major court case, this sort of unanimity in supposedly competing media would have been normal. But in this case it looks much more as if we have a controlled press.’

And, I might have added, a controlled BBC, which from the beginning of the destabilisation of Syria has reported the government line (a noble and spontaneous rising by liberal-minded democrats against the uniquely evil tyrant Assad) without qualification or scepticism, rarely giving time to doubters.

By the way, I am grateful to Edmund Adamus for reminding me, on Twitter, of the extraordinary interview with Lord (Paddy) Ashdown, normally a part of the interventionist establishment, on the Radio 4‘Today’ programme, here

Lord Ashdown’s suggestions of reluctance by the Gulf States to take part in the war against ISIS, and of closeness between sections of the Tory Party and rich Arab individuals, are quite astonishing and in my view worthy of more attention than the internal struggles of the Labour Party – where Jeremy Corbyn’s bad relations with his Blairite MPs are about as surprising and newsworthy as a scowling match between Margaret Thatcher and Ted Heath.

The incessant concentration, especially by the BBC in almost every bulletin I heard over the weekend, night and day, on the Labour Party’s internal strife, seems to me to be a failure of impartiality. Little of substance happened to justify the intensity and sustained continuity of this coverage. It almost all stood upon unattributable briefings received by the reporter involved. Few of these stories (in one I heard it suggested that Jeremy Corbyn might ‘force’ his MPs to vote against bombing, something he has no power to do) rose above the level of speculation.

I tried to explain, in my 2004 book ‘The Broken Compass’, later re-engineered as ‘The Cameron Delusion’, the extraordinary power which the political lobby has over the coverage of politics in this country, and of how its own interests and fixed ideas (few of them are interested in politics in the way that I am. They function much more like show business or sports reporters, whose careers are hitched to the stars they write about) ensure that some things are lavishly, intensively covered and others (often much more important) never covered at all, or barely mentioned. I explained that this was not done in ‘conspiracies’ but at lunches and dinners where people privately agreed to pursue a common interest without appearing to do so. Which sounds so much nicer and more normal than a ‘conspiracy’ but is in fact exactly the same thing.

Nobody read it, and it made no difference, as usual. And so here we are again, on the way to war, and all anyone can talk about is the Labour Whip.

29 November 2015 1:43 AM

Once again, as a patriotic Englishman from a Naval family, I stand amazed to find myself so lonely in my doubts about a foolish war.

I am no pacifist. I supported the retaking of the Falklands, national territory illegally seized by foreign invaders. I was thrilled to see that the Royal Navy could still do the hard tasks for which it is paid too little. Could it now?

Yet, on the basis of an emotional spasm and a speech that was illogical and factually weak, we are rushing towards yet another swamp, from which we will struggle to extract ourselves and where we can do no conceivable good.

Heaven forbid that it will lead (as other such adventures have) to more melancholy processions, bearing flag-wrapped coffins, from RAF Brize Norton; or to quieter convoys, carrying terribly injured men to special hospitals. Why must good, brave, dutiful men and women die or be maimed for life because our politicians are vain and ignorant?

But there is no knowing the end of this, especially given the Prime Minister’s absurd belief that we have 70,000 ‘moderate’ allies just waiting to help us in Syria. Among these scattered ‘moderates’ are those who last week murdered a Russian pilot as he parachuted to earth, and mauled his corpse.

When this phantom army turns out to be non-existent, or hostile, how long will it take Mr Cameron to return to the House of Commons, pleading oh-so-reasonably for ground troops to follow?

It is all such rubbish. I have yet to see conclusive evidence that the Paris murders were organised by or in Islamic State. France has plenty of home-grown hatred and (despite strict gun laws) is awash with illegal Kalashnikovs and ammunition.

Nor can I see why bombing Raqqa will defend us or anyone against such murders.

France’s President Hollande, a failed politician in bad domestic trouble, mired his own country in Syria months ago. I can’t see what good reason we have to follow him there. It will not help to bind up the wounds of the people of France.

Only three weeks back, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee advised, in a carefully argued report, that intervention in Syria is not a good idea. The pathetic cave-in of that committee’s chairman, Crispin Blunt, who now supports Mr Cameron’s latest war, merely makes Mr Blunt look irrational, weak-minded and easily led.

The UN Security Council resolution (of which Mr Cameron makes so much) actually offers no legal basis for military action. Nor does it cite Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which authorises the use of force.

David Cameron is already suffering from galloping Churchill syndrome (the patient growls, denounces his critics as appeasers, and starts wars). Now he seems to have contracted Blair’s disorder, an irresistible desire to pose alongside military hardware. On Monday he managed to have his portrait taken next to a very macho-looking Typhoon fighter jet at Northolt RAF base on his way back from Paris. Odd, that. Typhoons are not normally stationed at Northolt, and I haven’t been able to get a coherent explanation of what military reason it had to be there, so convenient for a photo-opportunity.

The Prime Minister might have been better employed looking up Syria on a map, reading the relevant documents, or consulting with our former ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford – who energetically opposes what he denounces as ‘recreational bombing’.

In all these modern wars real experts are impatiently pushed aside, while flatterers and yes-men take over. But it’s not decided yet. There’s still just time to write to your MP, if you agree with me that this is folly. I beg you to do so.

Reaping a feminist whirlwind

On Thursday night I witnessed the ugliness of the new student intolerance at the Oxford Union, where I was taking part in a debate on marriage (I was in favour). I had never before seen burly security men stationed around the hall, or had to watch as screeching hecklers – having ignored pleas to put questions in a civilised way – were hauled from the room.

It was Germaine Greer they were mainly after (though they handed out leaflets at the gate slandering me, too). I like Germaine, as it happens, and think she is often a lot more sensible than people think she is. But does she ever wonder if the militant feminism she launched has some responsibility for the new generation of self-righteous would-be censors who would rather silence an opponent than listen to her?

****

I travel a lot by train, and have begun to notice that the ride is getting much rougher. On a recent journey from London to Edinburgh I had to move seats because I was over the wheels and being jolted about so much. It reminded me of the Mandalay-Rangoon express (though in its grimy way that’s more comfortable than Virgin).

The worrying thing is that I noticed a similar worsening in the track at the end of the 1990s, just before a terrible series of crashes caused by track failure. Is Network Rail maintaining our lines properly?

****

The turmoil of the past two weeks has buried two pieces of bad news which the Government really doesn’t want you to know.

The first was Thursday’s record net immigration figures, showing that Mr Cameron has completely lost control of our borders.

The other was a huge and unexpected increase in Government borrowing in October, when it was supposed to have fallen. This passed almost entirely unnoticed.

No wonder the Chancellor seems to have put the economy in the hands of Doctor Who. The mythical £27 billion that he miraculously discovered in time for his Autumn Statement is even more non-existent than the Prime Minister’s imaginary army of 70,000 Syrian moderates.

Doctor Who will be needed to get hold of this money, since it does not yet exist, and is to be found (if at all) only in the future, and then in small annual dribs and drabs.

If George Osborne were a company, he would be heading for bankruptcy. As it is, I confidently predict very severe tax rises within three years. Perhaps Doctor Who will by then have replaced Mr Osborne at No 11 and will be able to escape the voters’ wrath in his Tardis.

*******

All the four main unpopular newspapers had virtually the same page one headline on Friday morning: The Times’: ‘Labour at war over vote to bomb Isis’, The Telegraph: ‘Labour at war over Syria air strikes’; ‘The Guardian: ‘Labour in Syria Turmoil as PM makes the case for war’; ‘The Independent’ : ‘Labour at war over air strikes in Syria’. The BBC’s headlines were very similar.

None of these stories contained any clear facts, just anonymous briefings. If it had been a plane crash, or a verdict in a major court case, this sort of unanimity in supposedly competing media would have been normal. But in this case it looks much more as if we have a controlled press.

(This last item was accidentally omitted when the column was first posted)

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Share this article:

27 November 2015 4:04 PM

I just thought it worth reproducing these stories from several newspapers, today (27th November 2015) detailing new research which suggests that Skunk cannabis (the most widely available) is associated with physical damage to the human brain. Those who say that if cannabis were on free sale, weaker types would be more readily available, seem to me to have a poor case. Stronger brands of alcohol and tobacco continue to be highly popular, though both are legal and ‘regulated’.

Daily Mail:

Strong cannabis does harm brain, researchers warn

By: Colin Fernandez

SMOKING super-strength cannabis can cause significant levels of brain damage, a study has shown. Researchers found that people who regularly took strong 'skunk' cannabis had signs of greater damage to the biggest 'tract' of white matter.

This area - the corpus callosum - carries signals between the brain's left and right sides. Damage to it can lead to mental illnesses and psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations, as well as slowing down the brain's activity.

The researchers say their findings demonstrate an 'urgent need' to educate the public, medical staff and policy makers about the risks of skunk - the most popular type of cannabis in the UK.

Skunk has high levels of a compound called Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) - which is key to giving smokers a high. Levels are about 20 per cent higher in skunk now than ten years ago, as cannabis growers create ever stronger strains of the plant to give a bigger buzz.

Dr Paola Dazzan, of the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, said: 'We found that frequent use of high-potency cannabis significantly affects the structure of white matter fibres in the brain, whether you have psychosis or not.

'This reflects a sliding scale where the more cannabis you smoke and the higher the potency, the worse the damage will be.' She said the damage to the corpus callosum was likely 'Urgent need for education' to make the brain less efficient because it slowed the flow of information across the brain.

The researchers studied 56 patients who reported having a psychotic incident for the first time and 43 healthy volunteers.

The healthy subjects had an average age of 27 and the psychotic patients an average age of 29. Half of the healthy volunteers smoked cannabis daily compared with 70 per cent of the psychotic patients. The scientists carried out MRI brain scans to assess levels of damage.

Dr Tiago Reis Marques, a senior research fellow at King's College London, said: 'The white matter damage was significantly greater among heavy users of high potency cannabis than in occasional or low potency users.' Dr Dazzan added: 'There is an urgent need to educate health professionals, the public and policy makers about the risks involved with cannabis use.

'When assessing cannabis use it is extremely important to gather information on how often and what type of cannabis is being used. These details can help quantify the risk of mental health problems and increase awareness on the type of damage these substances can do to the brain.' The authors write in Psychological Medicine: 'High-potency cannabis is replacing traditional herbal cannabis preparations in many European countries. Raising awareness about the risks of high-potency cannabis abuse seems therefore crucial.'

Daily Telegraph

'Skunk' cannabis damages key nerve fibres in the brain

Powerful "skunk weed" cannabis causes significant damage to vital nerve fibres linking the two halves of the brain, a study has found.

The damage occurs in the corpus callosum, the structure that allows communication between the left and right hemispheres. Higher consumption of the drug caused more harm, according to the evidence. Its effect on users, and connection with psychosis - associated with strong forms of cannabis - remains unclear.

Dr Paola Dazzan, of King's College London, said there was an "urgent need" to educate health professionals, the public and policymakers about the risks associated with cannabis use. The study is published in the journal Psychological Medicine.

The Guardian

High-strength cannabis 'may damage brain'

By: Ian Sample

Strong cannabis may damage nerve fibres that handle the flow of messages across the two halves of the brain, scientists say.

Scans of people who regularly smoked a skunk-like form of the drug revealed differences in the corpus callosum, the bundle of fibres connecting the hemispheres. The changes were not seen in non-users or those who smoked less potent forms. The study is thought to be the first to look at the effects of cannabis potency on brain structure. Paola Dazzan, a neurobiologist at King's College London, said the effects appeared to be linked to the level of active ingredient - THC - in the cannabis.

The corpus callosum - the brain's largest white matter structure - is rich in cannabinoid receptors, on which THC acts. In the study, reported in the journal Psychological Medicine, it was found that daily users of high-potency cannabis had a slightly greater "mean diffusivity" - by about 2% - in the corpus callosum.

Dazzan said: "That reflects a problem in the white matter that ... makes it less efficient. We don't know exactly what it means for the person, but it suggests there is less efficient transfer of information." The study does not confirm that high levels of THC in cannabis cause changes to white matter and it may be that people with damaged white matter are more likely to smoke skunk in the first place.

But even with the uncertainty, Dazzan urged users and public health workers to change how they think about the drug.

"When it comes to alcohol, we are used to thinking about how much people drink, and whether they are drinking wine, beer, or whisky," she said. "We should think of cannabis in a similar way - in terms of THC and the different contents cannabis can have - and potentially the effects on health will be different."

Experts fear the changes may have a long-term impact on their thinking power. "Skunk" is four times more potent than normal cannabis, and is the most commonly used form.

Researchers at King's College London looked at 99 adults, around half of whom smoked dope.

They found skunk users had the highest levels of brain damage. Dr Paola Dazzan, of the King's Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, said: "We found that frequent use of high potency cannabis significantly affects the structure of white matter fibres in the brain.

"The more cannabis you smoke and the higher the potency, the Danger ...worse the damage. This could reduce cognitive function (brain power)." It is reckoned that in England one in 16 adults have smoked cannabis in the last year.

A World Health Organisation report last year concluded regularly smoking cannabis doubles the risk of serious mental health problems.

The Times

Smoking skunk can cause brain damage

By: Oliver Moody

Smoking skunk or other strong varieties of cannabis can cause brain damage similar to the effects of concussion, a study suggests.

The potency of the drug has risen consistently over the past two decades, leaving frequent users at an elevated risk of psychosis and subtler mental health problems.

Brain scans show that the highstrength cannabis that is increasingly common in the UK does more harm to the "white matter" connecting different parts of the brain than weaker strains.

Paola Dazzan, reader in the neurobiology of psychosis at King's College London, said that the region was the mind's traffic interchange, a tangle of highways carrying crucial instructions from one hemisphere to the other.

She and her colleagues used magnetic scanners called tractographs to examine the brain structure in 99 southeast Londoners, 59 of whom used cannabis regularly and 56 of whom had recently reported their first psychotic episode. They found that people who smoked more powerful varieties of cannabis tended to have more damage to their white matter, regardless of whether or not they had psychosis.

Also known as the corpus callosum, this part of the brain is important for the smooth running of a wide variety of cognitive functions and is the area believed to bear the brunt of concussion.

Two regions that seem to be particularly vulnerable to skunk contain motor fibres, which may contribute to hallucinations, poor co-ordination and warped sense perceptions if they are damaged. Although it is hard to link white matter structure to other specific mental problems, the changes associated with regular use of strong cannabis are likely to be gradual and general. "If you think of our brains, we've got left and right hemispheres, and the fibres that come from each part of the brain need to cross to the other part of the brain, and to do that they go through the corpus callosum," Dr Dazzan said.

Reliable data on the cannabis market are scarce, but a 2008 study for the Home Office found that it was increasingly dominated by homegrown herbal sinsemilla. This is about 15 per cent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the more damaging of the two active compounds in cannabis, compared with 9 per cent found in imported samples of the drug and 5 per cent found in resin.

Dr Dazzan said that THC was a neurotoxin that seemed to harm the brain's cannabinoid receptors. She called on health professionals to pay much more attention to the strength of cannabis used by their patients. "The main message is that the potency of the cannabis people use does matter greatly for the brain, whether they have psychosis or not," she said.

Share this article:

Bert is a hard man to argue with, because he just ignores the points that give him most trouble, and twists the rest. I’ve yet to see him attempt to defend his gratuitous ad hominem swipe at my friend Christopher Booker, a distinguished and courageous journalist of vast experience whom Bert dismisses as ‘ a bit of a loon’. Yet he has also not apologised for it.

This is why I ceaselessly remind him of his absurd posturing some years ago about the incontestable role of the EU and its Landfill Directive in forcing this country to change the way it collects rubbish. This is important because it is an example of the EU’s penetration into every aspect of life here, often unrecognised by those who are affected. The point about this is that Britain, unlike the EU sponsors of the Directive, could perfectly well continue to use landfill to dispose of garbage without any problem or environmental harm. But it faces huge fines if it does so, because it is governed by laws made elsewhere and in the interests of others. Bert has for some years avoided admitting that he was mistaken in claiming this change did not originate in the EU. This is because he never admits he was mistaken. He is now reduced to claiming that the matter is trivial. In which case, why did he engage in arguing about it in the first place, and very vigorously at that?

The truth is that he contradicts me for the sake of it.

Take the issue of Islamist terrorists all being habitual consumers of powerful mind-altering drugs.

Rather than address this interesting fact with an open mind, my automatic opponents, and the cannabis comment warriors, immediately create straw men, claiming or at least implying that I have declared unequivocally that drugs are the only reason for these outrages.

I have not said this and do not believe it.

I do not even *know* how drugs affect the brains of those who take them. This is mainly because so much about mental illness and the action of drugs upon the brain is unknowable in the current state of scientific understanding. Correlation is our main means of making this link.

Big Dope Comment warriors and other contrary persons immediately say such things as ‘Correlation is not causation’. Indeed it is not. I am well aware of it, hence the caution of my argument.

But they omit to mention that it is, even so, the foundation of epidemiology and that correlation is not necessarily *not* causation. They also put up another destructive and irresponsible argument : all these killers also ate bread or consumed mother’s milk. This correlation is just as strong. Both are therefore equally meaningless.

This argument is plainly false. But how do we demonstrate that?

I sought to do so thus: ‘ Without an established causal link, [the connection between cannabis use and mental illness] remains a matter of conjecture, though the strong and plausible correlation between the persistent habitual use of powerful mind-altering drugs and irrational behaviour is not much less indicative, in my view, than a correlation between a hammer blow and the dent on the surface struck by the hammer. It is surely persuasive to anyone with an open mind.’

I should have added that, unless you have actually observed that particular hammer striking that particular surface, the evidence remains just that – a persuasive correlation, not a proven hypothesis. But I thought this was clear to any fair-minded person, as I was still consciously and deliberately using the word ‘persuasive’ rather than any expression suggesting certainty.

The parallel is, however, quite clear. It is not exactly surprising to find that the use of powerful mind-altering drugs, which observably affect brain function (we know that they do. We just don’t know how) is associated with subsequent mental illness. It would be surprising if , say, foot massage, carpentry or a love of flowers were associated with such an outcome, there being no similarly obvious connection between the two.

This passage followed one in which I pointed out that I was not ‘convinced’ of this link. This is not because I don’t myself find it persuasive (for I obviously do) , but because I treat, as far as I can, my own arguments with the same rigour I apply to those of my opponents.

I have often found that caution, modesty and honesty in argument does not produce a comparable response in some opponents. Bert is one of these. Rather than recognise that I was treating him as a fair-minded adult, Bert responded thus:

‘Mr Hitchens is attempting to have his cake and eat it. He writes that ‘Without an established causal link, [the link between cannabis and terrorism] remains a matter of conjecture’ – a cautious and sensible position. He goes on, though, to compare the ‘strong and plausible correlation’ between the two with the correlation between a hammer blow and the dent on the surface struck by the hammer – ie not a matter of conjecture at all. He concludes that to ‘anyone with an open mind’ – ie good people like him – this is ‘surely persuasive’. I disagree.’

But with what is he disagreeing? The fact that it is *persuasive* does not mean that it is *conclusive*. What is the point of using precise and careful English if one’s opponent ignores the distinctions between such words? Nor do I say that it is conclusive.

I readily agree that I wish it were, for then we would not be in such danger of legalising the very drugs which I suspect of causing this danger.

But I recognise that it is not. Nobody is compelled to agree with me by the available facts and the process of logic. All that I ask is that they recognise that this is a reasonable and sustainable contention, about a matter of some urgency, which ought to be explored by an inquiry. Bert offers no arguments against such an inquiry, or against taking the matter seriously as a possibility. Despite strong evidence that this *might* be important, Bert has concluded that it is not important. His only real argument for this, it seems to me, is that I say it is important and that therefore it is not.

In face of my caution and admission that my argument is incomplete and needs further evidence, Bert does not respond with a civilised and open-minded ‘Yes, let’s agree it needs to be looked into’ he just concludes (without adducing any reason) that I am wrong.

What’s more, he has his own explanation, untroubled by any modesty or diffidence:

He says : ‘To my open mind – I do not have any interest, financial or otherwise in illegal drugs – the main motivator for these acts of terrorism seems to be religion – a horribly perverted interpretation of religion thankfully shared by very few.’

Well, the openness of Bert’s mind seems to me to be a matter for dispute and further detailed discussion elsewhere. But, leaving that aside, what does he mean by ‘main motivator’? How does one measure precisely what the ‘main’ motivation is at any given time? Are we even discussing motivation? A political motivation may express itself in loyalty to our cause, passionate public declaration, emotional engagement, but yet not take the shape of organised or individual violence.

In my experience, most normal human beings are strongly predisposed against violence, and need to have their inhibitions removed before they will contemplate it. Military discipline, often combined in combat with issues of rum, overcomes these inhibitions in many, as does the noise and fighting madness of war. But these forces don’t operate on individual living in advanced urban societies. There are, I should calculate, many thousands of young men in this country who have been wooed by Wahhabi preachers and have in whole or part accepted their stern and puritanical message. Yet there is no evidence that most of them have ever considered, let alone involved themselves in, homicidal violence.

Those who have taken violent action (with very few exceptions) turn out, for much of their lives to have been alienated petty criminals, usually unable to hold down jobs, often gang members and abusers of mind-altering drugs. In the recent Paris outrages, the killers seem to have continued this way of life right up to the moment when they chose to murder their fellow-creatures in circumstances of great cruelty.

I really don’t see how this squares with Bert’s contention that Islamist fervour (which frowns on this way of life) is the *main motivator*. Were it so, then surely it would be self-disciplined and abstemious young men known for their piety and puritanism who would be the main actors. It isn’t.

Yet the response of Bert to this point is simultaneously to ignore and to twist it (he ignores it *by* twisting it, a technique in which he is expert. Thus he appears to be responsive without actually responding)

‘I’m struggling to understand the final paragraph of your response. Is it that these terrorists cannot have been real Muslims if they drank etc (the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy), and so their faith cannot have been any motive for their behaviour. That seems to be an attempt to ascribe rational thinking to people who are clearly not rational, and you don’t need drugs to think and behave irrationally. I have not seen any reports that any of these Islamic terrorists have not genuinely believed that they were acting for their faith – however sick and twisted we think that this sort of reasoning is.’

I don’t know what his struggle is, except to avoid engaging with arguments he cannot answer. He says that Islamist fervour is the main motivation for these murders. Yet the culprits of the murders are , in most cases, demonstrably not devout Muslims. They are the opposite. This has nothing whatever to do with the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. It is a statement of fact which flatly contradicts his claim about motivation ( ‘the main motivator for these acts of terrorism seems to be religion’ ) As for 'I have not seen any reports that any of these Islamic terrorists have not genuinely believed that they were acting for their faith', nor have I. But I have seen plenty of reports suggesting that, in practice, they are not especially devout individuals. This is demonstrable.

Share this article:

25 November 2015 5:26 PM

I really don’t think anyone has any business being more pessimistic than I am. And while I’m grateful to, and cheered by, those of you have heeded my call to write to your MPs urging them to oppose British bombing of Syria, I am exasperated by those who have said (and many have)

‘It’s a foregone conclusion, and acting against it is a waste of time.’

I even gather that some MPs who oppose the bombing have replied in this defeatist tone to letters from constituents.

May I remind those who say this that I was told exactly the same thing in 2013 when I also tried to mobilise opinion against Mr Cameron’s last attempt to go to war(on the opposite side) in Syria?

And then the votes were counted and lo! , Mr Cameron had lost his vote .

I believe he has been peeved about this ever since. Whenever he struts about at any international conference, he feels the other leaders are whispering ‘That’s David Cameron, the man whose Parliament won’t allow him to use his air force’, and sneering.

I believe he thinks this makes him a second-class statesman, that he’s not a proper leader unless he can order bombers to pound foreign places whenever he feels like it. He clearly felt that Ed Miliband had wrongly robbed him of an opportunity to bomb, and he clearly resents it, as he shows every time he speaks about it.

I do wonder how that picture of him strolling past an RAF Typhoon jet at Northolt (where Typhoons are not normally based) on his return from Paris came to be taken. As far as I know, Typhoons, are more or less useless type of air superiority fighter built at great expense some years too late for World War Three, in which they would supposedly have tangled with Soviet Mig-29s and Su-27s over Germany in ultra-modern dogfights. They certainly have no current role to play in bombing ISIS. I gather they’re now to be modified for some other purpose, utterly unsuited to their design and capabilities, but that’s another story.

As well as Churchill syndrome, he seems also be suffering from a galloping case of Blair’s disorder, a desire to be seen alongside and among fighting men.

But since then things haven’t gone entirely to plan. People have noticed that the Defence Review was mainly notable for trying to undo stupid mistakes made by the Cameron-led Coalition a few years ago (the worst being the crazy scrapping of Nimrod maritime patrol planes, now to be replaced by expensive American equivalents) – but also for seeking to conceal the bad mess we have got into over Trident replacement, now badly delayed (like almost every major capital infrastructure project in the country) and overrunning its costs (like almost every major capital infrastructure project in the country). Not to mention trying to find something to do with Gordon Brown’s vast and unusable aircraft carriers (HMS White Elephant I, and HMS White Elephant II) which are as suited to the shrunken coastal defence force now known as the Royal Navy as a ten-gallon Texan hat would be to the actor Toby Jones.

They also fail to conceal the pitifully small Army which limps on after the dreadful cuts Mr Cameron himself imposed upon it.

Our national defence, truth to tell, is in a dreadful mess, hopelessly unbalanced by the ludicrous machismo of the unusable Trident, which frightens nobody and which we don’t even control, and poorly placed to respond quickly to the sudden dangers which are the main concern of any serious defence planner.

And in the midst of this Mr Cameron wants to get us into another war. People have asked why our involvement in Syria is worth opposing, since it is likely to be politically and militarily ineffectual - see Patrick Cockburn’s superb article in today’s (25/11/2015)‘Independent’ for a discussion of the uselessness of the plan here

It is mainly because these interventions are often the beginning of something much bigger and longer-lasting ( as those of us who can recall British troops being welcomed to Londonderry in 1969 by Roman Catholic Irish families can recall) .

There is also grave danger of unintended consequences, as the Turkish destruction of a Russian jet on Wednesday showed. Which sides are we really on in this five-sided war of almost everyone against almost everyone?

Turkey and Russia are both ostensibly attacking Islamic State. Yet Turkey has shot down a Russian plane, and Turkish-backed militias claim (appallingly) to have killed the pilots as they parachuted to earth. Since neither Russia nor Turkey seems to have been wholly frank about their intentions, can we be sure Mr Cameron (whose selective loathing of President Assad is great and unassuaged) is being wholly frank about his aims? Has anyone really asked him what they are, in a place where he has to answer? I hope they do.

And to encourage those who have yet to write to their MPs asking them to vote against this adventure, I reproduce below the Monday article in which I explained the strong case against war :

Right. I have decided what to do about the Paris atrocities and ISIS, assuming (as everyone does, though evidence for this is so far scanty) that they are directly connected.

I would like to do something else, but I can’t. My influence on British foreign policy is non-existent, so that arguing for co-operation with Russia, Iran, Bashar Assad and the Kurds, and for serious action to bring about a peaceful settlement in Syria, will make no difference.

So instead I have decided to concentrate on the urgent task of trying to prevent David Cameron getting a majority for British military involvement in Syria. This would undoubtedly make matters worse, has no good reasoning behind it, and may well contain long-term dangers we can barely conceive.

So I must ask all my readers in the United Kingdom to write or e-mail their MPs, as soon as possible, politely, concisely and cogently, urging them to vote against any such intervention. This may conceivably affect events. I believe similar action may have done so the last time David Cameron wanted to go to war in Syria (apparently for the opposite reason for which the seeks to do the same now, but this is not wholly clear) , in September 2013.

I offer the arguments below, in case they wish to link to them in their e-mails, as a summary of the case against.

Why Change our Minds Now?

Emotion is a poor guide to strategy. Recent events in France, Sinai and elsewhere have rightly angered and distressed civilised people. But our emotions don’t excuse is from thinking. Some of the worst decisions in history have been taken on the basis of emotion. What is for certain is that there is no good reason for Parliament to change its mind on the subject.

Indeed, action was opposed by a recent (2nd November 2015) report by the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the only up-to-date dispassionate examination of the matter in this country. You may read it here

…..the resolution offers ‘no legal basis for military action. Nor does it cite Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, which authorizes the use of force.’

Downing Street briefings have not directly contradicted this, but have somehow managed to give a rather different impression, suggesting that the new resolution changes the legal position when in fact it does not. This, er, confusion about the legality of action and the meaning of UN resolutions gives me a strange sense of déjà vu. Perhaps someone should ask Lord Goldsmith about it.

The full text of the resolution may be found here (scroll down to reach it) :

Those who genuinely think that British participation in the bombing of Syria would instantly change the balance are living in a world of fantasy. Our forces are small, and will make little difference ( assuming they share the same aim) to the efforts of the US and France already under way.

See paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Foreign Affairs Committee report:

‘In military terms, we noted that although our witnesses believed that a decision to extend airstrikes into Syria would be welcomed by Coalition allies, some said that it would not have anything other than a marginal effect. The experts told us that it would not be likely to involve extra aircraft but would simply re-focus existing assets; that the UK was already contributing valuable surveillance in Syria; and that the ability to conduct airstrikes as well would not have a decisive effect. Sir Simon Mayall concurred, adding:

“There are not that many of them, actually. This is not an air campaign anything remotely like the scale of 1991 or 2003. We need to be very clear about this. This is not a war-winning air campaign, by any stretch of the imagination.”

‘23.As a result, several witnesses concluded that there was little reason for the UK to change its policy. Julien Barnes-Dacey was strongly against the proposal and told us that the airstrikes make the threat from ISIS worse (my emphasis, PH) because they “feed a sense of radicalisation”:

“Sunnis say, ‘Look, the West is not helping us against Assad, but they are fighting ISIS.’ […] We become direct parties, all the while contributing nothing meaningful, in terms of military numbers or capability. I really fail to see how air strikes against ISIS will not do more harm than good.”

In paragraph 33, the reasoning of the select committee is quite clear: ‘…we believe that thereshould be no extension of British military action into Syriaunless there is a coherent international strategy that has arealistic chance of defeating ISIL and of ending the civilwar in Syria. In the absence of such a strategy, taking action to meet the desire to do something isstill incoherent.’

In paragraph 35 it seeks the answer to several important questions, which I think the government will have some difficulty in answering if there is any sort of coherent questioning and debate in the Commons.

Enabling the House to reach a decision

35.The Government should explain the following points before asking the House of Commons to approve a substantive motion authorising military action:

a)On an international strategy:

i)How the proposal would improve the chances of success of the international coalition’s campaign against ISIL;

ii)How the proposed action would contribute to the formation and agreement of a transition plan for Syria;

iii)In the absence of a UN Security Council Resolution, how the Government would address the political, legal, and military risks arising from not having such a resolution;

iv)Whether the proposed action has the agreement of the key regional players (Turkey; Iran; Saudi Arabia; Iraq); if not, whether the Government will seek this before any intervention;

i)What the overall objective is of the military campaign; whether it expects that it will be a “war-winning” campaign; if so, who would provide war-winning capabilities for the forces; and what the Government expects will be the result of extending airstrikes to Syria.

ii)What extra capacity the UK would contribute to the Coalition’s actions in Syria.

36.We are persuaded that it is not yet possible for the Government to give a satisfactory explanation on the points listed above. Until it is possible for the Government to address these points we recommend that it does not bring to the House a motion seeking the extension of British military action to Syria.’

Whether your MP is Tory, Labour or SNP, she or he really ought to be aware of these arguments, and able to explain why she or he plans to ignore them if she or intends to support the new rush to war.

There is no excuse, if you write to your MP, for any of these politicians to claim afterwards that they were unaware of opposition to the plan, or misunderstood the effect of the UN resolution, or were unaware of the severe political and military drawbacks listed so recently by the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The recent atrocities have not in fact changed the material position. So why would a responsible, informed or thoughtful MP, whose decisions can in the end lead to the dropping of bombs, the drawing of this country into yet another endless and insoluble foreign conflict in which its aims are, to put it kindly, unclear, suddenly switch to supporting intervention? Bullying by the government whips or a desire to please Mr Rupert Murdoch and his media should play no part in such matters of life and death.

Please act now. For all the government’s claims that it is still pondering the matter, I believe there is a strong chance that it will ambush the Commons with a vote soon before it rises for Christmas on 17th December. That gives those who oppose this hasty and ill-considered action only a very little time to mobilise the forces of truth and reason against those of emotionalism, bombast and irrational panic.

I note that Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill are already being invoked, a clear sign that Munich Syndrome is raging in Whitehall, and especially fiercely in Downing Street itself. This is the delusional and historically illiterate belief that all crises are identical to the Czech crisis of 1938, that all this country’s enemies are identical to Hitler, that the sufferer is Winston Churchill reincarnated (he tends to growl in the later stages of the complaint) and that anyone who criticises him is Neville Chamberlain resurrected.

There is no known cure, but lying down in a darkened room with a cold compress on the brow and an umbrella to hand can relieve the symptoms.

Share this article:

23 November 2015 4:09 PM

Once again the Church Times has most generously lowered its pay wall to allow a direct link to important correspondence about the George Bell case. This is the latest in full, which I summarised on Friday: